From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 2 22:47:59 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E2810656A7; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:47:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com (mail-ew0-f211.google.com [209.85.219.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EC08FC16; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so639304ewy.13 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:47:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tBZ58xxdusvVk2N/KcDzlxd18jebd1noTJgMzFs8M2Y=; b=c95wpIcnOWj27RPHgp7Ekg+VY8O7T1idrBI/psYSB/XujmgVJs1VSCjngjQckpUWOq 11XTuffPTr+xZZnsP498KVOGphS+hPLKXldEjlep6Wc9ZbwnETB2JaEGSVcWsCi4/guZ 4qYxUYgq1dgObryx8MGkuaHHDE26O5MTTtFQc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=KTzyTNWl00RyhOU3hBMXmcIEBulnOPPE92CJ2d+bfqONajQWlzTSPTqVayvG7qVgEk rUGMI4aRoSriWwxCzuZZHTigMhUtgBk/vEpMflDz3diKwDKmgvRLrD99Fj5JMNRCOYa0 Y+iE5HEYKeZvy6GO2bCScn82gjvb/vkoNnP9w= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.154.70 with SMTP id g48mr1009008wek.109.1265150877083; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:47:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2a41acea1002021443t1c298528i2df3cf40269c733@mail.gmail.com> References: <147432021001310037n1b67f01bx4b4e8781321cea8@mail.gmail.com> <20100202173746.GA5901@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <2a41acea1002020948l6f3d1a08v9f4ccefd1241f566@mail.gmail.com> <201002022137.52064.max@love2party.net> <2a41acea1002021339i3801fc4bw736fa01188f60290@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea1002021341s62633188g4560960157f5cd1@mail.gmail.com> <20100202223818.GD5901@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <2a41acea1002021443t1c298528i2df3cf40269c733@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:47:56 -0800 Message-ID: <2a41acea1002021447t1067ee42gc59b25216270459b@mail.gmail.com> From: Jack Vogel To: pyunyh@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Nick Rogers , Max Laier , stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, jfv@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em(4) + ALTQ broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:47:59 -0000 Just teseted, and at least in the kernel build I'm doing its definitely defining that code on, hit my syntax error rebuilding em. Jack On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > It should never get to the drbr code, look at net/if_var.h, in the inline > definition > of drbr_dequeue() there is an #ifdef ALTQ that will effectively vector if > to use > the old IFQ_DRV_DEQUEUE() method. > > I guess I can test the build on a system here, stick some syntax error in > and see if it hits. > > Right now the inserted code looks solid enough to me, so somehow I think > its not being defined. > > Jack > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:41:01PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: >> > LOL, and I can answer my own question, I just looked and the ONLY >> > 1Gig drivers using multiqueue are mine, so I guess not eh? :) >> > >> >> I was wrong. ALTQ is defined in opt_global.h so drbr_ interface >> should already see ALTQ. I have to look into drbr_ code. >> >> > J. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks Max, yes, i've done some digging myself and now see how things >> > > work, the rubber meets the road in the defines in if_var.h. >> > > >> > > And what it does is effectively short circuit Kip Macy's multiqueue >> code >> > > in favor of the old method. >> > > >> > > Right now I can see two possibilities, either the defines are not set >> in >> > > the build, OR there is something wrong in the logic of the short >> circuit >> > > approach in Kip's code. >> > > >> > > A question might be if ANY driver that is usinig TX Multiqueue has >> been >> > > successfully used with ALTQ? >> > > >> > > Jack >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Max Laier >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:48:02 Jack Vogel wrote: >> > >> > So apparently this thing needs no special knowledge in the driver, >> yet >> > >> > something in >> > >> > the new code breaks it, can someone explain tersely how the altq >> app >> > >> > actually >> > >> > "pokes" or "hooks up" to the driver? I am not clear about that and >> I >> > >> > suspect if I was >> > >> > this would all be clearer. >> > >> >> > >> The whole story is in >> > >> >> > >> man 9 altq >> > >> >> > >> long story short, as long as you consistently use the IFQ_* macros to >> > >> manage >> > >> the interface queue, things should just work. if_var.h used to >> > >> conditionally >> > >> define these macros to avoid ALTQ overhead when the kernel is built >> > >> without >> > >> ALTQ. This has changed a long time ago and should not make any >> difference >> > >> anymore. >> > >> >> > >> I can't figure out who the OP is, but could you make sure that the >> > >> includes >> > >> that are used to built the kernel are up to date? You are building >> with >> > >> the >> > >> buildkernel target and not "the old way", right? Also, if you build >> just >> > >> the >> > >> module, the build might pick up the includes from /usr/include >> instead of >> > >> src/sys ... >> > >> >> > >> > Jack >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Pyun YongHyeon >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:30:52AM -0800, Nick Rogers wrote: >> > >> > > > > I guess the problem comes from multi-queue support. The drbr >> > >> > > > > interface is implemented with inline function so em(4)/igb(4) >> may >> > >> > > > > have to define ALTQ to the header. I have not tested the >> patch(no >> > >> > > > > time at this moment) but would you give it try? >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > I tried the patch and it did not work. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > You rebuilt kernel, right? Rebuilding kernel module has no >> effect. >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> > >> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> > >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> > >> freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > !DSPAM:4b686584144321871135632! >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >